The System of Theatrical Improvisation. Stanislav Hlushko

      This essay is based on the acting experience with an improvisation theater and expresses the author's personal view.

      CHAPTER 1

      THREE KEYS TO SPONTANEOUS IMPROVISATION

      Spontaneous improvisation is the primary foundation of an actor's skill. When children start to play, they do not need a playwright or a director – everything is happening spontaneously, easily, by itself. The same spontaneity of expression is inherent in adults, especially if they are actors. It is only later there appears someone who takes away all the "superfluous," and simultaneously makes them not free, but the essence of acting is nonetheless in improvisation.

      Spontaneous improvisation is the foundation for structural improvisation, and, generally, any form of its kind. Actors, in this case, are absolutely free, there is no script, mise-en-scène, director's directions, costumes, settings – all this comes into being during the act. Music in spontaneous improvisation is also absent because its presence can prevent actors from creating and periodically changing their own tempo and rhythm of acting, which cannot correspond with that of music.

      Only imaginary items are used for interior details and stage set up.

      Spectators take seats around the stage so the actors are saved the trouble of having to think what part of their body is turned to them. As shown by many years of experience, the position of the stage in the center of an auditorium is a fundamental issue. Attempts to play spontaneous improvisation on stage in its classical form proved less successful. The need to control one's body and to constantly face the spectators deprives actors of indispensable freedom of mind and body, without which improvisation is impossible.

      The actors are beyond the action area but the spectators can see them.

      After about a moment's pause, one of the actors steps forward and initiates the play. Can two or three people start to act at the same time? They can, but there is very little likelihood of them understanding each other and justification of their behavior under the same given circumstances, while respecting their logic or being organically illogical. Therefore, it is more reasonable that a single person begins acting. In this case, the fellow actors will have time to observe and comprehend the actions of the first. This does not mean that two or three actors may not step forward at the same time at the outset if they have wide improvisational experience enabling immediate contact.

      From this point on, three keys to spontaneous improvisation, or three basic principles, come into play and if used properly, improvisation becomes interesting.

      The first one is an IDEA.

      In this case, the meaning of this word differs from the classical understanding adopted in theater and dramaturgy.

      An actor steps forward and starts doing something thus putting forward a situation, which must be an extreme situation and which must have an immediate resolution (a suicide, the struggle for survival, a monologue about an unhappy love affair, confession before one's death, etc.). Extremeness sometimes does not need to be manifest or literal – the action can be neutral – extremeness must be felt inside and be expressed in counterpoint to facial expression and plastique. The spectators should understand that "something is happening." Generally, the character's attitude to the situation makes it extreme – any situation may be portrayed as extreme, and vice versa, an extreme theme may be treated with indifference, though this can be interesting in some cases as well. Anyway, internal inertia, if it arises, could last for the rest of the acting. That is why it is desirable to create suggested "hot" circumstances at the beginning.

      Can improvisation begin with a situation that is not extreme? It can if the idea, with which an actor appears, is rather interesting. Then the extremeness should be used by another actor or at least the next one. Sooner or later, the situation should be intensified, a problem of choice should be created – there must be a conflict as a catalyst for further development of the plot. Also, the original idea must contain an event ("war broke out," "she left me," "dad died," "he'll come here soon"). The event may not happen right now, it may be kept in an abstract future, but it must be offered as the necessary impetus to the development of the situation.

      What can be done if there is no idea, but you have to act? Step forward and do something, in other words, act and the idea will come later. The actions can be of any kind – logical, comprehensible to others – illogical, inexplicable, abstract, but in any case interesting. If the actors get carried away, the play for a long time can be generally devoid of extreme situations and events. A simple dialogue "about nothing" could be interesting for a longer period of time if the actors believe in what they are playing. A prolonged absence of a clear understanding of that what is actually happening on stage, what it is all about, may arouse interest of the spectators and it is sometimes not necessary to "show one's cards" but ultimately desirable to justify the play by making it clear.

      On this basis, a character, a place of action, the acting problem for the next period of time, and the attitude to what is going on (or has occurred) comes into the picture. The actor, who started the play, should answer the questions: "Who am I?" "Where am I?" "What am I?" "What do I want?" for himself and, most importantly, for the fellow actors and the spectators.

      If the first actor could not do it quite persuasively, that is, he or she appeared with no idea and could not answer any of the above questions, then the second or third actor should do it, and the other actors should support this idea as the most interesting. The difficulty is that neither the scene nor the attitude to the proposed circumstances, and especially the acting problem, can be in most cases retained through the entire play without any changes, – fellow actors will not let you do that. But answers to the above questions should be known at any time.

      Coming up with an idea, an actor must have a general understanding of what part his or her fellow actors could play and how could they step forward, i.e., to act as a playwright and director, with the rest of the actions reserved for other characters to step in. To mean such a locale and circumstances, into which nobody can step except the first actor, is not a good practice, with rare exceptions.

      It is important not to overload the Idea with other ideas and to explain everything. The essence of that what is going on must be made clear in an intelligible way – other actors will tell the rest. If, for example, the first actor says to the second, "Come tell me," then the second has a wide range of ideas that can be chosen – almost any scene and any character – a teacher-student, boss-employee, father-son option, etc. If the first actor says "Garrison, today I called your parents to school after you broke a window last night in the staff room and burned the front door, so your dad, being a major industrialist, will renovate the whole of our school and make present me with a car.", the other actors do not have such wide choice. It is feasible to narrow the realm of the play as much as possible if there is a novel idea prepared and the actor knows exactly what he or she will do next. In most cases it is impossible to predict the development of the action, so it would be correct to keep the latitude of the action as wide as possible.

      Though there is a combination of an actor, a director and a playwright in one person, that person on stage must hold a slight lead as an actor, but offstage, a playwright and director must prevail when he or she is watching the action and is deciding on options for advancing the scene.

      Offering an idea, an actor must decide on its genre, other actors entering the action must naturally